Loboscelidia, Westwood, 1874

Hisasue, Yu, Pham, Thai-Hong & Mita, Toshiharu, 2023, Taxonomic revision of the genus Loboscelidia Westwood, 1874 (Hymenoptera: Chrysididae: Loboscelidiinae) from Vietnam, European Journal of Taxonomy 887 (1), pp. 1-68 : 60-63

Key to males of Indo-Chinese Loboscelidia

1. M vein absent ( Fig. 3B ); Rs much less than twice as long as R ....................................................... 2

– M vein complete ( Fig. 3A ); Rs twice or more longer than R ........................................................... 3

2. Head wider than posterior width of pronotum; hindtibia with well-developed flange ....................... ...................................................................................................................... L. fulgens Kimsey, 2012

– Head narrower than posterior width of pronotum; hindtibia without flange ...................................... .................................................................................................... L. reducta Maa & Yoshimoto, 1961

3. Eye with erect setae ( Fig. 6B ); fore- and midtibiae without distinct flange ( Fig. 6A ) ....................... ..................................................................................................................................... L. cilia sp. nov.

– Eye without erect setae; fore- and midtibiae with developed flanges ( Figs 9A , 11A ) ..................... 4

4. Pronotum and legs always with scale-like setae ( Figs 5A, D , 7A, D ) .............................................. 5

– Pronotum and legs without scale-like setae ( Fig. 24D ) .................................................................... 7

5. Lower gena with cuneate setae ( Fig. 5A, D ) ....................................................... L. convexa sp. nov.

– Lower gena with scale-like setae ( Fig. 7A, D ) ................................................................................. 6

6. Scape much longer than 3.0 times as long as wide; scrobal sulcus absent ... L. asiana Kimsey, 1988

– Scape nearly 3.0 times as long as wide; scrobal sulcus present ( Fig. 7A ) ........... L. barbata sp. nov.

7. Cervical expansion strongly flattened in lateral view, not depressed behind ocelli; propodeum with transverse subapical carina ............................................................................................................... 8

– Cervical expansion not flattened at least curved in lateral view ( Figs 18D , 24D ); propodeum without transverse subapical carina ............................................................................................................... 9

8. Scrobal sulcus absent; foretibia without flange .................................... L. maculipennis Fouts, 1922

– Scrobal sulcus present; foretibia with flange, as wide as tubular part of foretibia ............................. ..................................................................................................................... L. nitidula Kimsey, 2012

9. Frontal projection elongate and nasiform; head nearly 3.0 times as long as wide ............................. ................................................................................................................ L. nasiformis Kimsey, 2012

– Frontal projection not elongate and rectangular to triangular ( Fig. 23D ); head twice or less as long as broad ........................................................................................................................................... 10

10. Tibiae without flanges ( Fig. 10A ), if narrow flanges present, it is much less than 0.2 times as wide as tubular part of tibiae ....................................................................................................................11

– Tibiae with more or less developed flanges, more than 0.3 times as wide as tubular part of fore tibia ................................................................................................................................................. 12

11. Temple as long as MOD ( Fig. 10B, D ); pronotum much longer than wide ....................................... ....................................................................................................................... L. defecta Kieffer, 1916

– Temple much longer than MOD; pronotum as long as or shorter than wide ...................................... ............................................................................................................. L. cinnamonea Kimsey, 2012

12. Scrobal sulcus absent ( Fig. 12A ) .......................................................................... L. flavipes sp. nov.

– Scrobal sulcus present ( Fig. 13A ) ................................................................................................... 13

13. Vertex behind ocelli strongly depressed ( Figs 6C , 7C , 13C , 21C , 23C ); cervical expansion strongly curved ( Figs 6D , 7D , 13A , 21D , 23D ) ........................................................................................... 14

– Vertex behind ocelli not depressed ( Figs 15C , 18B , 24D ); cervical expansion weakly curved ( Figs 15D , 18A , 24D ) ..................................................................................................................... 17

14. Frontal projection rectangular; Rs more than 3.5 times as long as R ...... L. pasohana Kimsey, 1988

– Frontal projection triangular ( Fig. 23B–C ); Rs less than 3.5 times as long as R ........................... 15

15. Temple longer than MOD ( Fig. 23C ); scape 3.8 times as long as wide; M straight; cu-a absent ...... .................................................................................................................................... L. vang sp. nov.

– Temple shorter than MOD; scape 2.5 times as long as wide; M curved; cu-a present ................... 16

16. Body reddish brown; Rs 2.5 times as long as R ................................ L. sarawakensis Kimsey, 1988

– Body brownish yellow; Rs 3.0 times as long as R ......................................... L. collaris Fouts, 1922

17. Scape polished, usually without longitudinal grooves ( Figs 11A , 16C , 24B ); F1 less than or twice as long as wide .................................................................................................................................... 18

– Scape rugose, with longitudinal grooves ( Figs 8B , 9A ); F1 usually more than twice as long as wide ......................................................................................................................................................... 22

18. F11 4.0 times as long as wide ( Fig. 16B ) ....................................................................................... 19

– F11 less than 3.5 times as long as wide ( Figs 4A , 11A , 24A ) ........................................................ 20

19. Scape 3.0 times as long as wide; F2 twice as long as wide; fore- and midtibial flanges as wide as tubular part; hindtibial flange twice as wide as tubular part ........................... L. kafae Kimsey, 2012

– Scape 2.6 times as long as wide; F2 less than twice as long as wide; fore- and midtibial flanges narrower than tubular part ( Fig. 16A ); hindtibial flange as wide as tubular part ( Fig. 16A ) ............. ................................................................................................................... L. laminata Kimsey, 2012

20. LOL less than 0.2 times as long as MOD ( Fig. 11C ); foretibial flange much wider than tubular part ( Fig. 11A ); hindtibial flange much wider than tubular part of hindfemur ..................... L. do sp. nov.

– LOL more than 0.3 times as long as MOD; foretibial flange less than tubular part ( Figs 4A , 24A ); hindtibial flange less than tubular part ............................................................................................ 21

21. Temple 0.8 times as long as MOD ( Fig. 4C ); F1 and F2 much less than twice as long as wide; tooth of hindtarsal claw less than 0.2 times as long as hindtarsal claw ................ L. bachmaensis sp. nov.

– Temple less than 0.3 times as long as MOD ( Fig. 24C ); F1 and F2 nearly twice as long as wide; tooth of hindtarsal claw longer than 0.4 times as long as hindtarsal claw ............ L. vietnamensis sp. nov.

22. cu-a absent or less than 0.2 times as long as R ( Fig. 19E ) ............................. L. pecki Kimsey, 2012

– cu-a 0.2–0.6 times as long as R ...................................................................................................... 23

23. Frontal projection triangular ........................................................................................................... 24

– Frontal projection rectangular ( Figs 8C , 9D , 15C , 18C ) ................................................................ 25

14. Fore- and midfemoral flanges less than tubular part; hindtibial flange as long as tubular part; hindtibial flange 0.6 times as wide as tubular part ...................................... L. scutellata Fouts, 1922

– Fore- and midfemoral flanges as wide as tubular part; hindtibial flange 0.67 times as long as tubular part; hindtibial flange twice as wide as tubular part .................................. L. laotiana Kimsey, 1988

25. M vein straight ................................................................................................ L. fulva Kimsey, 2012

– M vein curved ( Fig. 26B ) ............................................................................................................... 26

26. Body blackish brown; basal part of cervical expansion constrict ( Fig. 15C ); median tooth of tarsal claw extending half of tarsal claw ( Fig. 25K ) ..................................................... L. komedai sp. nov.

– Basal part of cervical expansion subparallel ( Figs 8C , 9D , 18C ); median tooth of tarsal claw distinctly shorter than half of tarsal claw ( Fig. 25E–F, M ) ............................................................................. 27

27. Pronotum, propleuron and forefemur with cuneate setae; Cu+M as long as A ( Fig. 9F ) ................... ............................................................................................................................... L. cuneata sp. nov.

– Pronotum, propleuron and forefemur with normal setae; Cu+M less than A ( Figs 8F , 18G ) ......... 28

28. Frontal ridge distinct; R1 less than 0.5 times as long as R ( Fig. 8F ); Rs less than 3.0 times as long as R .............................................................................................................. L. cucphuongensis sp. nov.

– Frontal ridge indistinct; R1 about as long as R ( Fig. 18G ); Rs more than 3.0 times as long as R .......................................................................................................................... L. parallela sp. nov.

Key to females of world Loboscelidia

1. Ribbon-like setae on gena and frontal projection separated ( Fig. 17D ); fore wing without A vein; all tibiae without flanges ............................................................................................ L. mediata sp. nov.

– Ribbon-like setae on gena and frontal projection not separated ( Figs 14D , 20D , 22D ); fore wing with A vein; tibiae with flanges ................................................................................................................ 2

2. Body covered with dense decumbent scale-like setae ( Fig. 22A ); eye with scale-like setae ............. ........................................................................................................................... L. squamosa sp. nov.

– Body without dense scale-like setae, if the body with scale-like setae, eye without scale-like setae ( Figs 14D , 20D ) ................................................................................................................................ 3

3. Head pear-shaped in dorsal view ( Fig. 20C ) .................................................... L. piriformis sp. nov.

– Head diamond or kite-shaped in dorsal view ( Fig. 14C ) .................................................................. 4

4. Eye with erect setae .......................................................................................................................... 5

– Eye without setae ( Fig. 14B ) ............................................................................................................ 6

5. Head, dorsal of pronotum, scutum, and mesoscutellum with dense erect or suberect normal setae; behind ocelli strongly depressed; cervical expansion convex ................... L. antennata Fouts, 1922

– Head, dorsal of pronotum, scutum, and mesoscutellum with sparse decumbent or suberect normal or cuneate setae; behind ocelli weakly depressed; cervical expansion flattened ..... L. maai (Lin, 1964)

6. R1 vein 0.3 times as long as R vein; cu-a vein as long as R vein ...................... L. ora Kimsey, 1988

– R1 vein longer than half of R vein; cu-a vein much shorter than R vein ( Fig. 13E ) ........................ 7

7. F11 0.80 times as long as wide ( Fig. 14A ); POL longer than MOD; flange of hindtibia as wide as tubular part ( Fig. 14A ) ............................................................................................ L. glabra sp. nov.

– F11 2.3 times as long as wide; POL shorter than MOD; flange of hindtibia 0.8 times as wide as tubular part .............................................................................................. L. hei Yao, Liu & Xu, 2010

Figures

Fig. 3. Forewing venation of Loboscelidia Westwood, 1874. A. L. barbata sp. nov. B. L. fulgens Kimsey, 2012.

Fig. 6. Loboscelidia cilia sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, D–G = 0.5 mm; B–C = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 9. Loboscelidia cuneata sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Forewing. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars:. A, E–G = 0.5 mm;. B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 11. Loboscelidia do sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 5. Loboscelidia barbata sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B–G = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 7. Loboscelidia convexa sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 24. Loboscelidia vietnamensis sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 18. Loboscelidia parallela sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 23. Loboscelidia vang sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 10. Loboscelidia defecta Kieffer, 1916, ♂ (USNM). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, lateral view. D. Pronotum, dorsal view. E. Mesosoma, dorsal view. F. Forewing. Not to scale.

Fig. 12. Loboscelidia flavipes sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 13. Loboscelidia fulgens Kimsey, 2012, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, lateral view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, dorsal view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B = 0.1 mm; C–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 21. Loboscelidia reducta Maa & Yoshimoto, 1961, paratype, ♂ (USNM). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Pronotum, dorsal view. E. Mesosoma, dorsal view. F. Forewing. Not to scale.

Fig. 15. Loboscelidia komedai sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 16. Loboscelidia laminata Kimsey, 2012, holotype, ♂ (CNC). A. Lateral habitus. B. Forewing. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Not to scale.

Fig. 8. Loboscelidia cucphuongensis sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view.D. Head, lateral view.E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Forewing. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, C–G = 0.5 mm; B = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 4. Loboscelidia bachmaensis sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Mesosoma, dorsal view. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, G = 0.5 mm; B–F = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 19. Loboscelidia pecki Kimsey, 2012, holotype, ♂ (CNC). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, lateral view. D. Pronotum. E. Forewing. Not to scale.

Fig. 26. Distribution map of Loboscelidia spp. in Vietnam. L. asiana Kimsey, 1988 (read circle). L. bachmaensis sp. nov. (dark blue circle). L. barbata sp. nov. (yellow circles). L. cilia sp. nov. (green circle). L. convexa sp. nov. (pink circle). L. cucphuongensis sp. nov. (gray circles).

Fig. 25. Hind tarsal claw of Loboscelidia Westwood, 1874. A. L. bachmaensis sp. nov. B. L. barbata sp. nov. C. L. cilia sp. nov. D. L. convexa sp. nov. E. L. cucphuongensis sp. nov. F. L. cuneata sp. nov. G. L. do sp. nov. H. L. flavipes sp. nov. I. L. fulgens Kimsey, 2012. J. L. glabra sp. nov. K. L. komedai sp. nov. L. L. mediata sp. nov. M. L. parallela sp. nov. N. L. piriformis sp. nov. O. L. squamosa sp. nov. P. L. vang sp. nov. Q. L. vietnamensis sp. nov.

Fig. 17. Loboscelidia mediata sp. nov., holotype, ♂ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars: A, D–G = 0.5 mm; B–C = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 14. Loboscelidia glabra sp. nov., holotype, ♀ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars: A, E–G = 0.5 mm; B–D = 0.2 mm.

Fig. 20. Loboscelidia piriformis sp. nov., holotype, ♀ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus. B. Head, frontal view. C. Head, dorsal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Pronotum, dorsal view. F. Mesosoma, dorsal view. G. Forewing. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.

Fig. 22. Loboscelidia squamosa sp. nov., holotype, ♀ (VNMN). A. Lateral habitus.B. Head, dorsal view. C. Head, frontal view. D. Head, lateral view. E. Forewing. F. Pronotum, dorsal view. G. Mesosoma, dorsal view. Scale bars = 0.5 mm.